Many of us have heard the old wisdom that: "No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." However, with the rise of the regulatory state, it appears that the above quotation is no longer entirely accurate since our regulators are paid to work full time, regulate year-round, and what they are doing is noticeably starting to hurt. So even though Congress is in recess, our state legislatures are done for the year, and we are recreating in the warm summer sun, going to the beach, and cutting the grass (with gas powered lawnmowers), they are now coming for….our cars.
The New Federal DOT CAFE Standards
The Biden administration recently dumped a 696-page proposed rule that would raise the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars from 44.1 miles per gallon (mpg) to 66.4 mpg. Trucks and SUVs would be required to increase a shocking 22 mpg from 32.1 mpg to 54.4 mpg. Can you imagine a pickup truck getting 55 miles per gallon? Me neither.
CAFE standards were initiated in the 1970s as a response to gas shortages with the idea that if Congress could require the auto industry to manufacture a certain number of high miles per gallon cars, that it would save on gas. This led to cars being smaller and lighter which then led to people dying as these balsa wood cars would get into accidents. As the gas crisis abated, the CAFE standards did not go away as the feds continued to raise the required average miles per gallon per automaker fleet to accommodate various political fads of the day.
However, after the gas shortage in the 70s was resolved, the people decided that they liked big minivans, SUVs and pickup trucks. To comply with the left-over CAFE standards, the auto industry made a mix of unprofitable tiny cars which Americans generally did not want along with profitable pickup trucks and SUVs which Americans did want because, well…, they were safer and better.
Not to be deterred by the market and the best interests of the American people, the Biden administration raised the miles per gallon standards again. In a rare act of public disclosure, the DOT revealed that these new standards would “cost” the American public $5.2 billion that it wouldn’t have had to pay but for this regulation vs the presumed financial “benefits” of $5.1 billion which included the effects of the reduction of climate change on foreign countries (no…I am not kidding). So, in other words, the net benefits for passenger cars were negative. (See page 56342 of Volume 88 of the Federal Register) (no…I did not look this up. I stole it from an article in the Wall Street Journal. Even for me, there are limits that I am willing to go to inform my public of impending governmental disasters.)
The feds brag that this regulation will reduce carbon emissions by 885 million tons of CO2 through 2050 which might seem impressive except to put this in perspective, 885 million tons over 18 years of carbon reduction is only ½ of the carbon emissions from the Canadian forest fires from this summer alone. The estimate of this effort to reduce greenhouse gases over 18 years would result in the lowering of world temperature by 0.000%. So, to summarize, the costs are more than the benefits and the effect on world temperature is zero.
So, you may ask a silly question. Why are they doing this instead of spending their time at the beaches on the New Jersey and Maryland shores or watching pre-season football? The answer to that question requires a peek into the details of the regulation. As mentioned above, CAFE standards are based on an average miles per gallon of the car manufacturers’ fleets of vehicles. If you manufacture more tiny little cars that have high gas mileage, you can sell more normal cars that people want.
As it relates to electric vehicles, the miles per gallon equivalent of EVs under the CAFE standards is currently 237 miles per gallon (mpg). Please don’t ask me how they got this number since EVs don’t use “gallons” of anything. So, if auto makers could make a few EVs rated at 237 mpg, they could make more 24 miles per gallon SUVs that most people want to buy.
However, in the new regs, not only did the feds increase the new fuel standards, but they also lowered the EV miles per gallon rating from 237 mpg to 67 mpg. With this combination, the only way a manufacturer can get to an average of 66.4 miles per gallon in its fleet is to not make any gas-powered vehicles. It’s math….
Oh, they still “ca” manufacture gas powered vehicles, but failure to achieve the required miles per gallon average would subject auto manufacturers to fines estimated to total some $300,000,000 or about $4300 per vehicle. The could pay big fines or how about this? They could manufacture only electric cars.
EPA Carbon Emission Rules.
Don’t think that the anti-gas automobile haters are relying on this regulation alone. In April, the EPA issued new tailpipe emissions standards that require a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 56% compared to the 2026 model standards.
The EPA projects that this will require 67 percent of all new light-duty vehicles sold in the U.S. - i.e., passenger cars, trucks and SUVs—to be all-electric by the 2032 model year.
The States.
But that’s not all. Not content to rely on the Biden EPA or the Department of Transportation to choke off gas powered vehicles (since these regulations may be unconstitutional), the states have gotten into the mix by completely banning the sale of any gas-powered vehicles by 2035, of course long after the politicians who mandated these regulations will be gone and forgotten and therefore immune from the inevitable cursing that will occur.
The California rules require that 35% of new car sales be electric vehicles by 2026, 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. Where the power will come from to charge all of these vehicles is yet to be determined, but then again, the only requirement is that all the vehicles sold in California must be EVs. It doesn’t require that they work.
To understand how the environmental policy is particularly pernicious, under federal law, the states are required to follow federal environmental standards EXCEPT for California which may ask the EPA for an exception for more strict air quality standards, which it did. Magnifying the damage that California can cause is that other states can also adopt stricter standards if they comply with the California standards set by CARB which has nothing to do with your diet but is the California Air Resources Board.
Sixteen other primarily solid blue states plus the District of Columbia have agreed to be governed by California Air Resources Board regulations. These include Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Nevada.
In the last few months Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington have approved plans by their governors or regulatory agencies to impose limits on gas powered vehicle sales by 2035. Delaware, Vermont, Maine, and New Mexico are working on it while Virginia is getting cold feet. Colorado has not gone whole hog on a total ban by 2035. It is mandating that “only” 80% of car sales be EV cars by 2035. Of course, the regulatory day is still young.
Who Is Going to Buy These Cars?
A major unanswered question as the feds and the states mandate EVs in lieu of new gas-powered vehicles is who is going to buy them? The greens are giddy with the increase in the numbers of new EVs currently being sold. But the starting point is pretty low. Of the estimated 284 million cars on the road, only 1.7 million are EVs or 0.59%. The current sales numbers are all over the place with one report placing the percentage of EV car sales in the first quarter of 2023 at 7%. However of that number, only 73% are fully EVs or Battery EVs (BEVs-to get you up to date with the latest acronym.) The remaining 27% are hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) which use fossil fuels and are therefore evil in most venues and do not count. This gets us to a celebrated 5.1% of new cars sales being BEVs.
Now the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association estimated that in 2022, 10.5% of the new cars sold were EVs, and EV cheerleader, Will Toor, the Colorado Energy Office Executive Director, comes up with yet a different number of 13.5% and proclaims, “it’s going to continue to grow.” That last part is probably not true.
That’s because the group of people buying EVs right now are not a representative market. The market is skewed by green minded governmental and ESG entities converting governmental and corporate fleets to electric. Having converted, those entities will not be buying new EVs for some time to come. Also, the current 13.5% of purchasers (if that number is even close to accurate) do not represent the major segment of the car buying public, the poor and middle class.
Right now, only rich people can afford to buy electric vehicles and even those folks require federal and state subsidies. The segment of rich people who have bought electric cars to save the planet will not buy another one next year or for several years to come. What is clear and basic is that if EVs were so great, the government wouldn’t have to ban their gas fired competitors nor subsidize their purchase.
Destruction of the Used Car Market for Poor People.
And what about the used car market in an all-EV automotive future? Poor people who want to go somewhere other than where the bus goes have historically bought cheap used cars. The same is true for middle class people who may want an extra car for the kids. The hope has been to take a look at the car, figure that the engine and transmission will last at least for a while, slap some new tires on it, and you have transportation.
The EV used car market alters that economic environment since the main component that will go wrong with a used EV is the battery. Instead of a potential downside of a $2000 rebuilt transmission or a $4000 blown engine which for many would be a financial disaster, they will now face the cost of replacing an EV battery which by physics degrades the longer the car has been in use and will cost a prohibitive $15,000 to $20,000. No poor person would be able to take that type of financial risk on a used EV and without any gas-powered used car option, a large segment of society that has relied upon used, cheap automobile transportation will be forced to walk, get a bike or take public transit that doesn’t go where they want.
Can Car Companies Manufacture enough EV cars for a 100% Market?
Another question is even assuming that the public will all of a sudden want overpriced electric vehicle transportation, will the car manufacturers be able to respond to the demand? While we have established that the measurable benefit in the fight against global warming to be minuscule, the results of electrifying passenger transportation will cause extensive environmental damage.
It takes vast amounts of natural resources to manufacture the batteries that this type of technology requires. It is estimated that it will take the displacement of 500,000 lbs. of mineral ore to make just one EV battery as it requires vast amounts of lithium, nickel, copper and cobalt. A single EV can require a mile of copper wire. Chile, Argentina and Bolivia are known as the lithium triangle and strip mining to satisfy the artificially inflated EV market will explode. Chile, of course, will absorb the environmental damage from vast copper strip mines, and nickel mines will destroy rainforests in Indonesia and the Philippines.
Blessings and Curses.
The problem with the debate on electric vehicles vs gas powered vehicles has been the suspension of reality which articulates only the good that can come from electric vehicles while refusing to recognize any of the problems or harms. Similarly, gas powered vehicles are demonized, portraying them as morally evil while ignoring all of the good that they have done and will do in the future. All technology has plusses and minuses, and the debate over the best technology going forward as a matter of policy is not advanced by refusing to discuss the pros and cons of each.
What we have now is that governmental regulators are running amuck acting on the basis of ideology rather than what is best for the public good.
No one is against clean air or picking up your own trash, but as the administrative state seeks to crush the use of fossil fuels, the people are only now beginning to see the damage that these policies and regulations will have on society.
The harm that is being inflicted on the people and the environment in the complete conversion to EVs are beginning to become apparent. The damage is coming, and the question is whether society will recognize it and push back against the politicians and regulators before it is too late? For that, we shall see.
Government run amok is right, Dave! Looks like we're trying to catch up with Germany, meaning were trying to devolve faster than they are. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/germanys-climate-efforts-not-enough-hit-2030-targets-experts-say-2023-08-22/
If the United States were to magically zero all carbon emissions today, the net impact on global climate change would be basically un-measurable. The PRC and India which, together, account for more than a third of the world's population are busily modernizing and their populations want western life styles -- no more burning buffalo dung to cook dinner. The PRC is turning on a new COAL-fired electric power plant twice a month -- and the coal they're burning is one step removed from peat. What we're doing here in the US is meaningless. That doesn't mean we should not be finding ways to clean up our environment -- just that we don't need the bureaucracies in DC to tell us how to do it. I'm old enough to remember when rivers here in the US caught fire, to remember when the Potomac River between DC and MD was covered with three feet of soap suds, to remember when your eyes burned driving through the LA basin. Let's be sane for a change.